New research has indicated that there may be adverse health effects associated with the use of e-cigarettes. The devices have become wildly popular throughout the world in recent years, in part due to perceptions that they are relatively harmless, or that they help smokers to kick the habit. Globally, the market for e-cigs is set to be worth £25 billion ($33bn)worldwide in less than four years’ time, and £4.45bn ($5.9bn) in the UK alone.

However, research by a team in Sweden has questioned the relative safety of e-cigarettes, with scientists arguing that those containing nicotine may increase the risk of strokes and heart attacks.

Fifteen volunteers who’d never used e-cigarettes before took part in an experiment, with tests revealing an increase in blood pressure, heart rate and arterial stiffness 30 minutes after using them. The test results of those who’d used e-cigarettes without nicotine reported no such effects.

Credit: PA

Dr Magnus Lundback of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet, a medical university in Stockholm, said: “The number of e-cigarette users has increased dramatically in the last few years. E-cigarettes are regarded by the general public as almost harmless. The industry markets their product as a way to reduce harm and to help people to stop smoking tobacco cigarettes. However, the safety of e-cigarettes is debated, and a growing body of evidence is suggesting several adverse health effects.

“The results are preliminary, but in this study we found there was a significant increase in heart rate and blood pressure in the volunteers who were exposed to e-cigarettes containing nicotine. Arterial stiffness increased around threefold in those who were exposed to nicotine-containing e-cigarettes compared with the nicotine-free group.”

It was noted that the effects of the nicotine-based e-cigarettes were temporary, but the researchers weren’t that through repeated use, it’s possible they could become permanent.

Credit: PA

None of the members of the 2016 experiment were heavy smokers (maximum 10 cigarettes per month) and none had used e-cigarette products before. The arterial stiffness (linked to strokes) found in those who had used nicotine e-cigarettes is also found in regular smokers, though Lundback warned of the dangers chronic use might bear, as well as the reality that cigarette companies have latched onto the perception of e-cigarettes as safer and are making the most of it.

He continued: “The marketing campaigns of the e-cigarette industry target current cigarette smokers and offer a product for smoking cessation. However, several studies question the e-cigarette as a means of smoking cessation, and there is a high risk of double use, where people use both e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes.

“Furthermore, the e-cigarette industry also targets non-smokers, with designs and flavours that appeal to a large crowd, even the very young, and that carry the risk of a lifelong nicotine addiction. The e-cigarette industry is expanding on a global scale. Some calculations suggest that in the USA alone, the e-cigarette industry will surpass the conventional cigarette industry within the next few years.”

Guest post 

CONTROVERSY ALERT!

IT’S MAORI LANGUAGE WEEK and I’m a supporter of Maori language. I always have been; ever since a Ngai Tahu kaumatua took an interest in my interest in ancient Maori culture sitting there at the Canterbury museum drawing intricate Maori carvings hour after hour into a sketch book on my lap. Te Reo enriches NZ and Maori but I have some things to say about the regime of “correct pronunciation” today of Maori words.

“Correct Maori pronunciation” is a myth!

It’s a modern pakeha construct. There was no Maori centralisation. Even the idea of “New Zealand” (actually “Nova Zelandia” or “Zeland” or “Zeeland” -more correctly we should have been “New Sealand”) was never known as “Ao-te-aroa” -which was only a regional tribal variation of some groups.

Maori assimilated hundreds of pakeha words that they ‘Maori-ised’ (Cook- “Kuki”) as did Europeans who ‘Anglicised’ Maori words (“Mow-ree”). So the dialectical pronunciations by pakeha today of Maori words is simply an identical repeat of Maori processes in language that were varied and disparate in their culture as in ours. Maori in the North and South Islands and on Rakiura (only one of its Maori place names) -even inside each of the islands – had different pronunciations and meanings.

Southern Maori had more vowels and even completely different words for the same things. Ditto Chatham Is. Maori who migrated from the South Is. Christchurch was not known as “Otautahi” which was merely a small place within a huge district that had many other place names related to food gathering: Taumutu Waiora Papanui etc

“Maori” itself means something like “ordinary person” and the varying use of words (as with the ‘rolling r’ of the south or the modern upward pakeha/Maori inflection or “chewy Nu Zulun” dialects in different groupings of New Zealand as characterised by “Lynn of Tawa”) is an inevitable human evolution of the sounds and usages of words never frozen in time. This is true of “Maori language” itself which changed and evolved from Eastern or Western Polynesia (perhaps the Marquesas or the Society Islands or Tahiti or even Fiji, Samoa and Tonga) until it was effectively a different -but understandable- “foreign” language in the same way that sixteenth-century Old English is to New Zealanders today.

And let’s not get started on Australian “English.”

So whether it’s “jandal” (“Japanese Sandal”) or “Kiwifruit” (the Chinese “mihoutao” known during my childhood as the “Chinese gooseberry”) or “Tarrah-naky” for “Tah-ra-naki” or “Rah-mati” for “Rowe-matty” –language is a tide and as fluid as the moana. Let’s not wear concrete gumboots as we slosh about the shallows of awa gathering our cultural kai or taonga as we evolve 21st century New Zealand cultural diversity which includes the rich and deep vein of Maoritanga in all its own diversity

– John Stringer, Te Wai Pounamu

(Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

Guest Post

Most of us will lie; sooner or later, for one reason or another. It’s the scale of the lie that matters and Labour are lying: Bigly.

Why would they do that? How would they expect to get away with lying to the public? Well, a certain Austrian fellow once said something on the subject: “In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility…people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.”

I’ve been hurting myself reading Labour’s Fiscal-Forecast; so you don’t have to. I spotted the small lie soon enough: there seemed to be money for jam, money for tea, money for you and money for me. Money, money, money. Everywhere. But there’s a catch.

The individual amounts glow from the page of the Fi-Fo, but they are meaningless unless applied in context to the total wealth available: the Gross Domestic Product. I found the numbers I wanted innocuously labeled: memo item: nominal Domestic Product, but the projections looked wrong, very wrong. The scale of projected growth in the economy looked unbelievable, unachievable unless gold is found again in Gabriel’s Gully. The average growth in the economy, year-on-year, in Labour’s books was well over 4% — that’s pure nonsense; most economists are projecting less than half of that, some say much less. Here’s the relevant part of the Fi-Fo; I calculated (roughly) the percentage increases and posted them above Labour’s numbers:

And there, in plain sight, is the small fib. Can you see it? It’s the word ‘nominal’.“Nominal” has a precise meaning in economist’s language: It means including inflation. It’s normally expressed as a rate, in percentage terms, rather than applied as whole numbers. The difficulty is: inflation is not wealth creation, it is dilution of money value in the economy. If inflation was wealth Venezuela would be the richest country on earth. To put it in the context of Labour’s propaganda spreadsheet; everybody seems to be getting more money, but what they are getting is worth less.

Going back to numbers in the Fi-Fo, armed with my new understanding of Robbo’s mickey-mousey sums and meaningless riches, is a revelation; several items showing increases in spending under Labour are actually decreases after allowing for Robbo’s hidden and unannounced inflation shenanigans. For instance: After including the shadow-minister’s  estimates including inflation over the period of the Fi-Fo (close to 7.5% over the four years projections) “Defense” is in for a caning; the current spend $2286M should increase to $2459M but it doesn’t, Robbo only allocated $2372M for the military. That is, effectively, an $87M decrease in funding, but who cares? That just means there’s less money for flying helicopters into remote valleys and launching attacks on women and children, plus, there’s less for Nicky Hager to fantasise about. Next item: “Law and Order”, should increase from $4435M to $4776M; but it doesn’t—it comes in at $4686, that’s getting close to $100M less for Law and Order funding. ‘So what?’ will be the predictable Labour response on this anomaly; ‘less people will be stealing bread to survive than they were under National, we won’t need as many coppers’.

Then there’s the doozy, and she’s a real beauty I can tell you; “Housing and Community Development”, yes; ‘Housing’ the very subject the opposition and the media (same thing) have bashed National about for over eighteen months, competing with each other to come up with the biggest tear-jerk story, the juiciest Tory monstrosity. Here’s how it works out: Current Spend $2215M should increase with inflation to $2383M, but comes in after Robbo’s calculations at $2357; that’s nearly $30,000,000 less for the hapless homeless. The tear-jerk’s on you; Labour supporters, get yourselves a sleeping bag, a good one.

Now: to the big lie. BIG. BIG. LIE.

The Fi-Fo is replete with impressive graphs and pretty pictures; and we need to talk about one of them. What it purports to show is Grant and Cinda’s clever work. You see; despite the misleading figures they tried to blind us with earlier, the Dynamic Duo still don’t possess enough cash for all the lollies they hope to hand out to their mates, so they’re just going to take it, or withhold it, from ordinary working Kiwi’s, refusing to follow through on National’s tax-cut package. They’ve made no secret of this.

So, here’s the graph; entitled “ADDITIONAL REVENUE”, isn’t it cute? The dark red section is your money—now theirs. The one little bar on the left denotes extra income derived in the current financial year, it’s just a baby cos’ it hasn’t had a full year of sucking your wallet. What’s not to like? It’s nice and even and, really, what sort of meany would deny the helpless and homeless, the wracked and ruined, a mere $2B to help with social evils? That’s about where the bar-graph levels off.

Trouble is: It’s Dishonest. Grant and Cinda didn’t want you to see a truthful bar-graph, and they still don’t want you to see an honest one: The graph says “The figure below sets out the additional sources of revenue… That is untrue: We know it’s untrue. Completely and utterly untrue. Because they plan to take more, much, much more than $2 billion.

The Tooth-fairy is doing a merry-dance, teasing all and sundry about her ‘working group’ and their plans; she’s dancing the maypole to distract you. While it’s important, and we all want to know, what sections of the community will be hit with new levies, and who will be worst off; the thing that is most important is the actual cost. How much extra tax under Socialist-‘Cinda? Think eye-watering, think huge, think about how you’re going to pay 22% more tax within the next four years, because that’s the amount they’re coming for, and we know it’s the amount they seek because it’s right there in Labour’s numbers.

A $17 billion dollars increase! ($16,964,000,000 to be precise)

We will pay, on average, an extra $108 per week tax under Labour to raise the amount necessary to fund Cinda and Grant’s socialist wet-dream. $5660 per year more than now.

To put things in perspective, and show the true scale of Labour’s lies I reproduced the “ADDITIONAL REVENUE” graph from above on an honest, factual basis and it appears below, but be warned; it is scary. It might even break your machine. You may need to turn your screen sideways to see it; such is the magnitude of the lie. It may make you feel sick, so perhaps you could rush to the refrigerator before you view it and grab yourself a glass of milk.

Ladies and Gentlemen…may we never hear the awful words “We won. You lost. Eat that” coming from the lips of Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson because, if we do, this is what we get:

THE TRUE SCALE OF LABOUR LIES

-idbkiwi

Labour announced their light rail plans to the adoring lefty media luvvies.

They were instantly proclaimed geniuses for proposing light rail down the middle of one of Auckland’ busiest thoroughfares.

Now there is a snag…Labour actually has a $6 billion hole in their funding plans for the rail…and actually want Auckland Council to pay for it, not the government.

Labour is unclear how it will fund a $5 billion plan for modern trams in Auckland, but says Auckland Council will shoulder a “significant” share of the cost.

Labour’s Auckland Issues spokesman Phil Twyford today said he did not know how the costs will be shared between the Government and Auckland Council, except to say council will not pay the majority.

Twyford also did not know whether modern trams, also known as light rail, will sit on the Government or Auckland Council’s balance sheet.  

How wonderful. Labour is making spending promises with ratepayer cash. If Labour can’t get simple things like this right then they do not deserve to sit on the treasury benches.

In her first public appearance as Labour leader, Jacinda Ardern promised fast modern trams along two routes from the CBD to the airport and West Auckland within 10 years at a cost of up to $5b. This would be followed by trams to the North Shore.

Labour has promised to fund its Auckland Transport package by a combination of increased expenditure, cancelling or scaling back existing transport projects like the $1.8b east-west road through the city’s industrial belt and giving Auckland Council the ability to set a regional petrol tax.

Twyford said Labour would change the mix and priorities of projects in the city’s 10-year transport plan and spend an extra $2.1b. The overall plan would cost $15b, including the light rail projects to the airport and West Auckland, and had a $6b funding gap, he said.

Twyford said Labour was committed to funding the full $15b programme, but could not say how much Auckland Council would pay towards trams.

“Auckland Council is going to end up contributing a significant amount of that, but probably the smaller amount, not the majority,” said Twyford.

Dishonest as the day is long is Phil Twyford. Labour are hoodwinking people with their own money…that they haven’t stolen yet.

Phil Goff is singing from the same song sheet, wanting to rape ratepayers pockets even more.

It is unclear how the council, which carries the $3.4b City Rail Link on its balance sheet, could absorb another $5b for trams when the council is right up against its debt ceiling, which, if breached could lead to a credit rating downgrade and drive up borrowing costs.

Labour has said a regional fuel tax of 10 cents a litre would raise $160m a year for Auckland Council. The Herald estimates a 10c-a-litre tax would raise $100m a year.

Auckland Mayor Phil Goff said Auckland recognises that we need to have skin in the game.

“We’re prepared to share in the costs of investing in transport infrastructure in our city, but we need government to help us expand the base from which we generate revenue to pay for it,” he said.

Code words for extra taxes.

Goff, the former Labour MP who campaigned during the mayoralty for light rail, said trams to the airport is a priority and the latest ATAP update increases by $700m to $1.2b the money set aside for trams or rapid buses on the isthmus and to the airport.

“I welcome announcements from both parties that central government will contribute a significant share towards Auckland’s transport investment needs.

“I favour road pricing mechanisms rather than general rates increases. That would include options of congestion charging, tolling or a fuel tax to help generate the levels of funding required for transport infrastructure investment in Auckland. We’re also exploring the use of targeted rates and value uplift (higher rates for businesses that benefit from projects).

So, Labour and Phil Goff want to charge road users to fund public transport. How does get stuffed sound.

None of this will end well, costing far more than is promised and delivering far less.

Such is the inherent dishonesty of Labour politicians.

-NZ Herald